News Updates

Bombay HC Dismisses Plea For Recording Court Proceedings [Read Order]

LiveLaw News Network
7 Oct 2016 3:29 AM GMT
Bombay HC Dismisses Plea For Recording Court Proceedings [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Yet again, the Bombay High Court has denied permission to introduce the system of video recording or telecasting Court proceedings.

Relying on the January order in a similar matter where Justice G.S. Patel remarked, “These are courts, not stages and sets from The Truman Show. This is a judicial proceeding of the utmost solemnity, not The Hunger Games.”

Dismissing the petition, the division bench comprising Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Dr Manjula Chellur and Justice M.S. Sonak heavily relied on the order passed by Justice Dharmadhikari and Justice G.S. Patel where they had dismissed a similar order in January.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Counsel Nedumpara had prayed for a direction to Government to take adequate steps and measures to introduce the system of video recording the proceedings of the Supreme Court, High Court of Bombay and all the subordinate courts and tribunals within India as an authentic record of the proceedings, allow the copies of the said records to be issued to the public on demand paying off the costs, allow the court proceedings to be telecasted by the media, and also allow the same proceedings to be uploaded to the internet.”

During the hearing he submitted that at least court proceeding be "audio recorded" for there could hardly be any arguments against the said demand

But the bench was convinced that the issues raised were substantially covered in the order passed in January. Justice J.S. Patel had then said, “All (Videoconferencing and recording of trials in specific matters) of it was directed to a single end: the needs of that particular case. Not the needs of the general public to be entertained.”

Read the order here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.
Next Story